- (1.) Aggrieved by the Order dt. 7th August, 1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Misc. Case No. 9/70 of 1990 arising out of an application under S. 11 read with S. 33 of the Arbitration Act, Writ Petition No. 862 of 1991 has been moved. By means of the said order, pending the disposal of the application under S. 11 of the Arbitration Act forremovat of the Arbitrator, slay was granted. In the aforesaid writ petition, by Order dt. 17th January, 1991, the operation of slay order was stayed. During the pendency of the said Writ Pentition no. 862 of 1991, by order dt. 3rd September 1993 the application under S. 11 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Misc. Case No. 25/70 of 1993 was rejected while observing that the petitioner may approach the High Court for stay. Against ihe said order, Writ Peti-tion No. 33784 of 1993 has been moved.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petilion No. 33784 of 1993 and respondent in Writ Petition No. 862 of 1991 contends that the reference having been sought to be made unilaterally by the U. P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation, the same is not a reference as defined in S. 2(e) of Ihe Arbitration Act and, therefore, the Arbitrator cannot have jurisdiction to proceed with the same. He contends further that the arbitration agreement being vague and indefinite, is void and, as such, no arbitration can be proceeded with. He further contends thai because no dispute was formulated before the reference was made, therefore, the notice issued by the Arbitrator shows that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in proceeding with the arbitration arid, therefore, he should be removed. On these grounds, he contends that the arbitration proceedings should be set aside and the arbitration agree-ment should be declared void. He also prays for removal of the Arbitrator so appointed. He draws my attention to his application which is Annexure '4' to writ petition No. 33784 of 1993 which is termed as an application under S. 33 read with S. 11 of the Arbitrator Act and he had made out certain grounds in support of his prayer. The said application contains two prayers - one relates to the declaration lhat Ihe arbilration agreement is vague and void and the other prayer is that the Arbitrator appointed should be removed.
(3.) It appears from the said application that the existence of the agreement for arbitration is not disputed. Whal Mr. S.K. Varma, learned counsel for the petition in Writ. Petition No. 33784 of 1993, disputes is lhat Ihe said agreement is vague because of the reason thai no Arbitrators such is named. On the other hand the Arbitrator is named by designation or his nominee, therefore, the said arbitration agreement is vague and unenforcable.;